Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:181-210|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:14:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 8:35:27 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:34:23 PM, dhardage wrote:

Seems like they really are. Some secular scientists have come out in support of the model. Not that they agree with the conclusions, but that they recognize the validity of it.

Name them, if you please. I'd like to find out what their qualifications are and what fields they are in.
Here are some guest authors that are on their website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Most of these people are either philosophers or are in specialties that have no bearing on evolution or even biology. You have philosophers, mechanical engineers, and even Library Science specialists posting articles. There are a smattering of biologists and biochemists so will need to read their articles. Now you should look for the Scientists Named Steve project. That will show you, in contrast to the relatively small number on your list, the number of scientists named Steve who accept modern evolutionary theory.

Second, a cursory look at the articles published reveals that many of them are not about the model itself so that disqualifies them from the argument for it.

One of Reasons to Believes' books was published in this secular journal and reviewed:
http://link.springer.com... (review by David Deamer)

That link does not work. Can you provide an abstract and the review as well as information on David Deamer, his scholastic credentials, etc.)?

As well, both Ross and Rana are invited to university classrooms to give talks with science classes. These are not all Christian professors inviting them in either, but many secular ones. You can find many videos online of both Ross and Rana giving talks at secular universities and getting the secular professors to respond to their creation model. As well, they often take questions from the audience. Two of the secular professors that come to mind are Dr. Harry Nelson and Dr. Kevin Plaxco from UCSB.

Again, I would need to know the content of those presentations before I can determine their relevance to this discussion.

So they get guest authors on their website, a piece of their model has been peer reviewed in a scientific journal

Reference please? Journal name, Article Title, date published so I can find and peruse it?

, and they give lectures and talks at secular universities.

Talks are not reviews and they are not authoritative in any way without associated research and results.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:16:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Finally Aura scanners are now being used for medical purposes just as I had predicted.

How it works.

"An AuraScan" is a painless, non-invasive test that uses state-of-the-art technology to analyze moles and lesions. By positioning the hand-held probe above the skin, a special light in the device measures subtle vibrational shifts in skin molecules."

"Since molecules in cancerous lesions vibrate differently than healthy tissue, Aura" can assist medical professionals in determining if there is cause for concern. Best of all, the whole process can be done quickly and easily in the privacy of your medical professional"s office. "

The product.

Verisante Aura.

CE Mark for Verisante Aura" Opens Doors to Massive European Market

November 9, 2011 at 7:00 am
http://www.verisante.com...

Health Canada Approval for Verisante Aura(TM) Marks Milestone in Skin Cancer Detection
http://agoracom.com...

Verisante Announces Official Launch of Aura in Germany
http://www.verisante.com...


Aura scanners are biochemical analysis systems.
Verisante Aura is also a biochemical scanner.

You are not up with the technology or the medical application of Aura scanners.

I am sure in the near future they will come up with an Aura scanner that can diagnose your condition.



You just cannot get over the fact I said Aura biochemical scanners will be used for medical health purposes and then provided the proof Canada, Europe is increasingly introducing biochemical Aura scanners in medical clinics.

Your ignorance is an embarrassment. I have vindicated myself from all your frivolous charges. Get over it.

The devices name alone should have informed you.

It is called Verisante Aura. It functions as a biochemical analysis system which is what Aura scanners do as well. The Verisante Aura is specific to analyzing skin cancer. It scans the surface and are non invasive just like the other Aura scanners. Get an education.

This from a man who can't tell a brand name from a function. It does not scan any aura. It look at reflections of light it projects. It is not an 'aura scanner' in any sense of the word. Did you even look at its theory of operation? I somehow doubt it.

The Verisante Aura scanner scans the surface of the skin . Auras radiate from the surface. That is why they picked a descriptive name and called it Verisante Aura.
You didn't know what Aura scanners were before I introduced them here. Get an education.

One more time. The light does not radiate, it is reflected. Get yourself a dictionary and look up these two words and you will see they are different. I am assuming that you have access to basic reference works. Verisante is the company that makes it. Aura is the model name.

To begin with the human skin is not made of reflective material? You need to consult a biology book and not a dictionary.

And you need to learn basic physics. Everything but a totally black body reflects part of the light that hits it or you couldn't see it, you dolt. That's what color is, reflected wavelengths of light.

So it is not reflecting the light from the Verisante Aura scanner. The skin absorbs the light and re-emits it. The resulting inelastically scattered photon which is "emitted"/"scattered" can be of either lower (Stokes) or higher (anti-Stokes) energy than the incoming photon.

Re-emitting something is not the same as emitting it in the first place. It had to absorb it from the scanner first. The body is not the source of it, only a transducer that changed the frequency and amplitude of it. A true aura radiates from the source without need for an external stimuli. You're really an ignoramus.

To quote the manufacturer," Verisante Aura" utilizes Raman spectroscopy, a powerful analytical method that uses a laser to probe molecular vibrations and provide very specific, fingerprint-like spectral patterns for identification of the biochemical composition of tissue. In Raman spectroscopy, near-infrared laser light changes the vibrational state of the bonds within molecules, which in turn causes a shift in the light that is scattered back to a sensor. The magnitude of that shift reveals what molecules are in the sample and at what concentration. The graph shown here is a stylized depiction of the typical spectral differences between malignant melanoma (MM) and a visually similar benign lesion, seborrheic keratosis

See? Outside source, not originating in the body of the patient kind of like ultrasound. No mention of an aura or a chakra or the body's energy field which is the original definition of an aura that you presented. How desperate are you to appear right that you'll twist things this badly?

This is the aura effect the Verisante Aura measures.
Radiate definition: 1. emit (energy, especially light or heat) in the form of rays or waves.

Actually, it's in the form of photons.

Reflect definition: (of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it.

Yep, like EVERYTHING YOU CAN SEE, you absolute dunce.

The skin absorbs and reacts with the light and inelastically re-emits it. The changes are analyzed by the Verisante Aura scanner to determine the presence or absence of cancerous cells.
I feel sorry for you dude. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.

I know the definition of reflection as concerns an absolutely reflective and partially reflective surface which you seem to have missed somewhere. The last thing I need is the pity of a fool.

Why are you derailing this thread? Post it in the appropriate thread. You already got stumped by Tstor. Now you want to derail his thread. Shame on you.

What's wrong, Hari? Finally realizing you're wrong and trying to wiggle out of it? Ok, I'll drop the subject if you will. Fair enough?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 8:35:25 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 2:06:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:

There is a lot of badgering to get you to explain your understanding of Hugh Ross's work and then pile on more irrelevant questions till they find a gotcha! moment which could be a typo, grammatical error of a rushed sentence and that then becomes the target of their attacks. And in all this time they have understood nothing about the topic under discussion nor have they contributed anything productive or constructive.
That is precisely what they are doing. I can't say I blame them, I would as well.

This is the first time the atheists are dealing with a qualified scientist as well as a world famous evangelist. Hugh Ross has presented a scientific basis for the bible creation and applied the scientific method to show the creation model is predictive. Science has independently verified many of its claims from the beginning (Big Bang) to evolution and the observable decay of all of creation which is in line with the second law of thermodynamics.
Exactly. They are afraid of what they might find.

Almost every scientists accepts the fine tuning of the universe which cannot be replicated by random choice. It all points to an intelligent creator.

They are trying to chip away at the weakest link which would presumably be "you". But you have brilliantly deflected those personal attacks by directing their energies to challenge the Creation Model with all the supporting links.

Therein lies the rub. It is beyond their scope, their pre-canned talking points are ineffective against the material you have presented by Hugh Ross. The credentials of Hugh Ross is not a secret. He is both a scientist and a man of God and a trusty Canadian. Those are tough credentials to beat by the average Joe atheist who is better at denying than producing qualitative arguments to articulate their position.

It is sad to see this arrogant bunch so easily deflated by such a nonchalant request that they consider "reasons to believe the Creation Model".
I couldn't agree more.

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:16:11 PM, dhardage wrote:

Finally Aura scanners are now being used for medical purposes just as I had predicted.

How it works.

"An AuraScan" is a painless, non-invasive test that uses state-of-the-art technology to analyze moles and lesions. By positioning the hand-held probe above the skin, a special light in the device measures subtle vibrational shifts in skin molecules."

"Since molecules in cancerous lesions vibrate differently than healthy tissue, Aura" can assist medical professionals in determining if there is cause for concern. Best of all, the whole process can be done quickly and easily in the privacy of your medical professional"s office. "

The product.

Verisante Aura.

CE Mark for Verisante Aura" Opens Doors to Massive European Market

November 9, 2011 at 7:00 am
http://www.verisante.com...

Health Canada Approval for Verisante Aura(TM) Marks Milestone in Skin Cancer Detection
http://agoracom.com...

Verisante Announces Official Launch of Aura in Germany
http://www.verisante.com...


Aura scanners are biochemical analysis systems.
Verisante Aura is also a biochemical scanner.

You are not up with the technology or the medical application of Aura scanners.

I am sure in the near future they will come up with an Aura scanner that can diagnose your condition.



You just cannot get over the fact I said Aura biochemical scanners will be used for medical health purposes and then provided the proof Canada, Europe is increasingly introducing biochemical Aura scanners in medical clinics.

Your ignorance is an embarrassment. I have vindicated myself from all your frivolous charges. Get over it.

The devices name alone should have informed you.

It is called Verisante Aura. It functions as a biochemical analysis system which is what Aura scanners do as well. The Verisante Aura is specific to analyzing skin cancer. It scans the surface and are non invasive just like the other Aura scanners. Get an education.

This from a man who can't tell a brand name from a function. It does not scan any aura. It look at reflections of light it projects. It is not an 'aura scanner' in any sense of the word. Did you even look at its theory of operation? I somehow doubt it.

The Verisante Aura scanner scans the surface of the skin . Auras radiate from the surface. That is why they picked a descriptive name and called it Verisante Aura.
You didn't know what Aura scanners were before I introduced them here. Get an education.

One more time. The light does not radiate, it is reflected. Get yourself a dictionary and look up these two words and you will see they are different. I am assuming that you have access to basic reference works. Verisante is the company that makes it. Aura is the model name.

To begin with the human skin is not made of reflective material? You need to consult a biology book and not a dictionary.

And you need to learn basic physics. Everything but a totally black body reflects part of the light that hits it or you couldn't see it, you dolt. That's what color is, reflected wavelengths of light.

So it is not reflecting the light from the Verisante Aura scanner. The skin absorbs the light and re-emits it. The resulting inelastically scattered photon which is "emitted"/"scattered" can be of either lower (Stokes) or higher (anti-Stokes) energy than the incoming photon.

Re-emitting something is not the same as emitting it in the first place. It had to absorb it from the scanner first. The body is not the source of it, only a transducer that changed the frequency and amplitude of it. A true aura radiates from the source without need for an external stimuli. You're really an ignoramus.

To quote the manufacturer," Verisante Aura" utilizes Raman spectroscopy, a powerful analytical method that uses a laser to probe molecular vibrations and provide very specific, fingerprint-like spectral patterns for identification of the biochemical composition of tissue. In Raman spectroscopy, near-infrared laser light changes the vibrational state of the bonds within molecules, which in turn causes a shift in the light that is scattered back to a sensor. The magnitude of that shift reveals what molecules are in the sample and at what concentration. The graph shown here is a stylized depiction of the typical spectral differences between malignant melanoma (MM) and a visually similar benign lesion, seborrheic keratosis

See? Outside source, not originating in the body of the patient kind of like ultrasound. No mention of an aura or a chakra or the body's energy field which is the original definition of an aura that you presented. How desperate are you to appear right that you'll twist things this badly?

This is the aura effect the Verisante Aura measures.
Radiate definition: 1. emit (energy, especially light or heat) in the form of rays or waves.

Actually, it's in the form of photons.

Reflect definition: (of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it.

Yep, like EVERYTHING YOU CAN SEE, you absolute dunce.

The skin absorbs and reacts with the light and inelastically re-emits it. The changes are analyzed by the Verisante Aura scanner to determine the presence or absence of cancerous cells.
I feel sorry for you dude. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.

I know the definition of reflection as concerns an absolutely reflective and partially reflective surface which you seem to have missed somewhere. The last thing I need is the pity of a fool.

Why are you derailing this thread? Post it in the appropriate thread. You already got stumped by Tstor. Now you want to derail his thread. Shame on you.

What's wrong, Hari? Finally realizing you're wrong and trying to wiggle out of it? Ok, I'll drop the subject if you will. Fair enough?

Please continue posting in the thread where this discussion on aura scanners started. You two are derailing Tstor's thread. Try showing some respect and common decency even though you are doing poorly against Tstor. I can see you have had enough of Tstor. I predicted you three would fail pathetically. Ruv, you and DannejeRusse.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Since molecules in cancerous lesions vibrate differently than healthy tissue, Aura" can assist medical professionals in determining if there is cause for concern. Best of all, the whole process can be done quickly and easily in the privacy of your medical professional"s office. "

The product.

Verisante Aura.

CE Mark for Verisante Aura" Opens Doors to Massive European Market

November 9, 2011 at 7:00 am
http://www.verisante.com...

Health Canada Approval for Verisante Aura(TM) Marks Milestone in Skin Cancer Detection
http://agoracom.com...

Verisante Announces Official Launch of Aura in Germany
http://www.verisante.com...


Aura scanners are biochemical analysis systems.
Verisante Aura is also a biochemical scanner.

You are not up with the technology or the medical application of Aura scanners.

I am sure in the near future they will come up with an Aura scanner that can diagnose your condition.



You just cannot get over the fact I said Aura biochemical scanners will be used for medical health purposes and then provided the proof Canada, Europe is increasingly introducing biochemical Aura scanners in medical clinics.

Your ignorance is an embarrassment. I have vindicated myself from all your frivolous charges. Get over it.

The devices name alone should have informed you.

It is called Verisante Aura. It functions as a biochemical analysis system which is what Aura scanners do as well. The Verisante Aura is specific to analyzing skin cancer. It scans the surface and are non invasive just like the other Aura scanners. Get an education.

This from a man who can't tell a brand name from a function. It does not scan any aura. It look at reflections of light it projects. It is not an 'aura scanner' in any sense of the word. Did you even look at its theory of operation? I somehow doubt it.

The Verisante Aura scanner scans the surface of the skin . Auras radiate from the surface. That is why they picked a descriptive name and called it Verisante Aura.
You didn't know what Aura scanners were before I introduced them here. Get an education.

One more time. The light does not radiate, it is reflected. Get yourself a dictionary and look up these two words and you will see they are different. I am assuming that you have access to basic reference works. Verisante is the company that makes it. Aura is the model name.

To begin with the human skin is not made of reflective material? You need to consult a biology book and not a dictionary.

And you need to learn basic physics. Everything but a totally black body reflects part of the light that hits it or you couldn't see it, you dolt. That's what color is, reflected wavelengths of light.

So it is not reflecting the light from the Verisante Aura scanner. The skin absorbs the light and re-emits it. The resulting inelastically scattered photon which is "emitted"/"scattered" can be of either lower (Stokes) or higher (anti-Stokes) energy than the incoming photon.

Re-emitting something is not the same as emitting it in the first place. It had to absorb it from the scanner first. The body is not the source of it, only a transducer that changed the frequency and amplitude of it. A true aura radiates from the source without need for an external stimuli. You're really an ignoramus.

To quote the manufacturer," Verisante Aura" utilizes Raman spectroscopy, a powerful analytical method that uses a laser to probe molecular vibrations and provide very specific, fingerprint-like spectral patterns for identification of the biochemical composition of tissue. In Raman spectroscopy, near-infrared laser light changes the vibrational state of the bonds within molecules, which in turn causes a shift in the light that is scattered back to a sensor. The magnitude of that shift reveals what molecules are in the sample and at what concentration. The graph shown here is a stylized depiction of the typical spectral differences between malignant melanoma (MM) and a visually similar benign lesion, seborrheic keratosis

See? Outside source, not originating in the body of the patient kind of like ultrasound. No mention of an aura or a chakra or the body's energy field which is the original definition of an aura that you presented. How desperate are you to appear right that you'll twist things this badly?

This is the aura effect the Verisante Aura measures.
Radiate definition: 1. emit (energy, especially light or heat) in the form of rays or waves.

Actually, it's in the form of photons.

Reflect definition: (of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it.

Yep, like EVERYTHING YOU CAN SEE, you absolute dunce.

The skin absorbs and reacts with the light and inelastically re-emits it. The changes are analyzed by the Verisante Aura scanner to determine the presence or absence of cancerous cells.
I feel sorry for you dude. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.

I know the definition of reflection as concerns an absolutely reflective and partially reflective surface which you seem to have missed somewhere. The last thing I need is the pity of a fool.

Why are you derailing this thread? Post it in the appropriate thread. You already got stumped by Tstor. Now you want to derail his thread. Shame on you.

What's wrong, Hari? Finally realizing you're wrong and trying to wiggle out of it? Ok, I'll drop the subject if you will. Fair enough?

Please continue posting in the thread where this discussion on aura scanners started. You two are derailing Tstor's thread. Try showing some respect and common decency even though you are doing poorly against Tstor. I can see you have had enough of Tstor. I predicted you three would fail pathetically. Ruv, you and DannejeRusse.

Again, you originated the discussion on aura scanners in post 149. If you want to pretend you're somehow more mature than I, you should own up to your own errors. I believe the Christian bible says something about removing the plank in your own eye before being concerned about the mote in your neighbor's. Good day.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:36:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 8:58:42 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:47:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The point is, the evidence for a common ancestor and evolution is weak.
If you believe it weak, then you must know what it is.
So what is it?
You directly ignored most all of what I said in the previous post.
That's correct. I found your evasions and ad-hominems intellectually weak, manipulative and disingenuous. Rather than telling you so, I kept my reactions private to preserve your dignity. However, since you keep challenging and insulting me on why I did so, that's why.

I will repeat myself again, if you do not appreciate that I am making you read from the source, then simply move on with your life.
I appreciate that you have endorsed a position without understanding it well enough to explain or defend it. Which makes me wonder why you insist anyone reads it, when you yourself can't explain it well enough to attest to its value?

I certainly do not appreciate you telling this forum that the evidence for common ancestry is weak without being able to explain what it actually is. That's intellectually disingenuous.

I do not appreciate a member with no training or experience in research science telling this forum that Ross has produced a scientific model. I would have respected it more had you said that he claims to have produced a scientific model, or that you think he might have -- since that much is certainly true.

I do not appreciate you telling a trained scientist that he must read extensively a promotional web-site full of scientific claims that have not been published in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he is biased or lazy if he doesn't.

I do not appreciate you advocating that others act on your opinions without respecting them enough to explain your advocacy and defend it.

Finally, I do not appreciate you presenting ignorant conjectures as statements of fact.

The great problem with studying more theology than science, Ty, is that it encourages this very sort of conceit. The conceit that claims authority from conjecture while skipping the critical steps of evidence and accountability. Christian males in particular are encouraged to think they're all little cousins of some divinely-inspired Moses, with God talking directly to them from every scripture, and that their every idle and ignorant conjecture should therefore be listened to politely and respectfully.

I frankly do not uphold that you are a Moses, nor that Ross is. I think he's a charlatan, ignoring his training and evading basic scientific accountability to self-promote to people ignorant enough to believe him. I would happily explore that with you in detail, did I think that you would then research facts diligently yourself and hold your own views to scrupulous account, rather than hunting for more pseudoauthoritative conjectures to exempt Ross and your beliefs from accountability.

That's why I won't read your links, Ty, until you put some skin of your own in. While-ever you evade doing so, you're not actually having a discussion: you're link-preaching.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:41:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:35:25 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 2:06:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:

There is a lot of badgering to get you to explain your understanding of Hugh Ross's work and then pile on more irrelevant questions till they find a gotcha! moment which could be a typo, grammatical error of a rushed sentence and that then becomes the target of their attacks. And in all this time they have understood nothing about the topic under discussion nor have they contributed anything productive or constructive.
That is precisely what they are doing. I can't say I blame them, I would as well.

This is the first time the atheists are dealing with a qualified scientist as well as a world famous evangelist. Hugh Ross has presented a scientific basis for the bible creation and applied the scientific method to show the creation model is predictive. Science has independently verified many of its claims from the beginning (Big Bang) to evolution and the observable decay of all of creation which is in line with the second law of thermodynamics.
Exactly. They are afraid of what they might find.

Almost every scientists accepts the fine tuning of the universe which cannot be replicated by random choice. It all points to an intelligent creator.

They are trying to chip away at the weakest link which would presumably be "you". But you have brilliantly deflected those personal attacks by directing their energies to challenge the Creation Model with all the supporting links.

Therein lies the rub. It is beyond their scope, their pre-canned talking points are ineffective against the material you have presented by Hugh Ross. The credentials of Hugh Ross is not a secret. He is both a scientist and a man of God and a trusty Canadian. Those are tough credentials to beat by the average Joe atheist who is better at denying than producing qualitative arguments to articulate their position.

It is sad to see this arrogant bunch so easily deflated by such a nonchalant request that they consider "reasons to believe the Creation Model".
I couldn't agree more.

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread.

The OP was already dealt with, Ross and his ilk of low lifes were already exposed by others. They are no different from the scum who sell aura detectors, both bilking money from the public.

They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.

Ross is an insult to science and the scientific community.

Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two.

LOL. How pathetic that you side with hucksters and shysters and promote fraudulent products. Very sad.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:07:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:14:26 PM, dhardage wrote:

Most of these people are either philosophers or are in specialties that have no bearing on evolution or even biology. You have philosophers, mechanical engineers, and even Library Science specialists posting articles. There are a smattering of biologists and biochemists so will need to read their articles. Now you should look for the Scientists Named Steve project. That will show you, in contrast to the relatively small number on your list, the number of scientists named Steve who accept modern evolutionary theory.
Patricia Babin - RNA biochemist
Russ Carlson - PhD in biochemistry
Richard Deem - MS in medical microbiology
Edward Glasscock - PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and currently serves as an instructor of neurology and neuroscience
Matthew McClure - PhD in zoology
Anjeanette "AJ" Roberts - PhD in cell and molecular biology
Brad Sargent - PhD in bioengineering

Those are just the people who have credentials related to biology. There are plenty of other theologians, chemists, and physicists.

Second, a cursory look at the articles published reveals that many of them are not about the model itself so that disqualifies them from the argument for it.
What do you mean? They write articles relevant to science, the same science used in the creation model.

One of Reasons to Believes' books was published in this secular journal and reviewed:
http://link.springer.com... (review by David Deamer)

That link does not work. Can you provide an abstract and the review as well as information on David Deamer, his scholastic credentials, etc.)?
It works just fine, I have tested it. Here is the abstract provided by the link:
"The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of Astrobiology. The journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres places special importance on this interconnection. While any scientific study which contributes to our understanding of the origins, evolution and distribution of life in the Universe is suitable for inclusion in the journal, some examples of important areas of interest are: prebiotic chemistry and the nature of Earth's early environment, self-replicating and self-organizing systems, the theory of the RNA world and of other possible precursor systems, and the problem of the origin of the genetic code. Early evolution of life - as revealed by elucidation of biochemical pathways, molecular phylogeny, the study of Precambrian sediments and fossils and of major innovations in microbial evolution - forms a second focus. The journal presents experimental papers, theoretical articles and authoritative literature reviews."

I cannot give you any information on the peer review itself because the journal charges money to read that article:
http://link.springer.com...

You wanted information on David Deamer:
http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu...
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Again, I would need to know the content of those presentations before I can determine their relevance to this discussion.
Look in the OP. As well, you can just use YouTube to find some. A good one is here:

So they get guest authors on their website, a piece of their model has been peer reviewed in a scientific journal

Reference please? Journal name, Article Title, date published so I can find and peruse it?
I gave you a link to the journal, but the name is:
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
http://link.springer.com...

The Hugh Ross review:
"Origins of Life. Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
http://link.springer.com...

Talks are not reviews and they are not authoritative in any way without associated research and results.
Talks are not, but they get secular professors to respond to their presentations.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:07:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.
Did I mention childish? Seems to me like you just copied what RuvDraba said. So if you are reading what he said, then you should naturally be reading what I said. Therefore, you know why I am not giving him what he wants. He wants me, someone who in the OP said that they were new to the model, to explain the model to him. I am not going to do that. He has yet to present any argument to the model. I have even given him articles about the model to help him understand it, yet he refuses to read them.

You also seem to copy RuvDraba's own argument, attack Hugh Ross with no evidence to support it. Unless you have some kind of real contribution to make, then I see no reason to continue posting on this thread.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:36:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

You directly ignored most all of what I said in the previous post.
That's correct. I found your evasions and ad-hominems intellectually weak, manipulative and disingenuous. Rather than telling you so, I kept my reactions private to preserve your dignity. However, since you keep challenging and insulting me on why I did so, that's why.
Either you didn't read it or you are easily insulted. I have yet to attack you this entire time. I have called you out for being vague and making baseless claims, but that is within reason. I did not present any information that evaded what you asked for, manipulative, or disingenuous. You might could argue it was weak, but that is because I want you to read the articles.

I will repeat myself again, if you do not appreciate that I am making you read from the source, then simply move on with your life.
I appreciate that you have endorsed a position without understanding it well enough to explain or defend it. Which makes me wonder why you insist anyone reads it, when you yourself can't explain it well enough to attest to its value?
You are wimping out, RuvDraba. I have admitted to not knowing it very well, I put that in the OP. By responding on this thread, it shows that you should understand the OP. If you do not, then that is on you and not me. As for defending it, I have given you plenty of resources that address your vague claims against the model.

I certainly do not appreciate you telling this forum that the evidence for common ancestry is weak without being able to explain what it actually is. That's intellectually disingenuous.
I am not telling the forum, I am telling you. You would know precisely what I am talking about if you read the articles I have given you. You would know precisely what I am talking about if you actually read the model. Instead, you attack my character, Ross' character, and the creation model with baseless claims.

I am not going to explain to you a concept that is new to me. The fact that you take issue with that is alarming.

I do not appreciate a member with no training or experience in research science telling this forum that Ross has produced a scientific model. I would have respected it more had you said that he claims to have produced a scientific model, or that you think he might have -- since that much is certainly true.
Did I say he has produced a scientific model? Or have I continually stated to you and others that it is incomplete? Ross is producing a scientific model. Your opinion about it is trumped by the real information. You have not raised a single argument about the information Ross has presented. This shows two things about you:
1) you have not studied the model
2) you have no real arguments against something you do not understand

I do not appreciate you telling a trained scientist that he must read extensively a promotional web-site full of scientific claims that have not been published in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he is biased or lazy if he doesn't.
This once again confirms your lack of research. As I have shown dhardage, peer review has been a factor. Obviously they are not going to publish an incomplete model for peer review, but they do have guest writers on their website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Also, they have given numerous lectures (over 300) and presentations at secular universities with the secular professors responding to their claims. I put one in the OP, not like you would know because you failed to read it, and there are many others available on YouTube.

A piece of their work has also been in a peer reviewed journal:
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
http://link.springer.com...

Paper from Hugh Ross:
"Origins of Life. Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
http://link.springer.com...

I do not appreciate you advocating that others act on your opinions without respecting them enough to explain your advocacy and defend it.
You have been day dreaming on Mars if you honestly think I have not defended the model and Hugh Ross. As well, you have made no legitimate arguments, so the defenses were for your own benefit.

Finally, I do not appreciate you presenting ignorant conjectures as statements of fact.
Such as?

The great problem with studying more theology than science, Ty, is that it encourages this very sort of conceit. The conceit that claims authority from conjecture while skipping the critical steps of evidence and accountability. Christian males in particular are encouraged to think they're all little cousins of some divinely-inspired Moses, with God talking directly to them from every scripture, and that their every idle and ignorant conjecture should therefore be listened to politely and respectfully.
Hm, so does that make you a Christian?

I frankly do not uphold that you are a Moses, nor that Ross is. I think he's a charlatan, ignoring his training and evading basic scientific accountability to self-promote to people ignorant enough to believe him. I would happily explore that with you in detail, did I think that you would then research facts diligently yourself and hold your own views to scrupulous account, rather than hunting for more pseudoauthoritative conjectures to exempt Ross and your beliefs from accountability.
So your argument is that he presents false information? That has been your argument from the start, but you still have yet to back up that claim. Unless you decide to actually articulate a real argument, do not bother attacking people or their work.

That's why I won't read your links, Ty, until you put some skin of your own in. While-ever you evade doing so, you're not actually having a discussion: you're link-preaching.
Yeah, it is almost like I started this conversation by admitting I am new to the model.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:17:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:07:21 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:36:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
That's why I won't read your links, Ty, until you put some skin of your own in. While-ever you evade doing so, you're not actually having a discussion: you're link-preaching.
Yeah, it is almost like I started this conversation by admitting I am new to the model.
Why do you call it a model?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:22:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:17:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Why do you call it a model?
Are we really back to stage one? RuvDraba, you are very intelligent and I do appreciate that. However, I cannot tell what you are trying to do in this thread. You have abandoned all reasoning and resulted to attacking me, Ross, and the model without actually saying why. I tried my best to help you understand with the resources I provided.

The reason I call it a model is because, by definition, it is a model.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:22:42 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 10:17:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Why do you call it a model?
Are we really back to stage one? RuvDraba, you are very intelligent and I do appreciate that. However, I cannot tell what you are trying to do in this thread. You have abandoned all reasoning and resulted to attacking me, Ross, and the model without actually saying why. I tried my best to help you understand with the resources I provided.
The reason I call it a model is because, by definition, it is a model.

Certainly, that's what the authors call it. They do so on multiple pages of their site. I read this when I first visited the site before responding to your post, for example:

Simply put, a scientific model is a conceptual framework that offers a simplified view of a large, complex reality. Models help researchers organize vast amounts of information into a conceptual structure so as to better understand and interpret the data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Einstein"s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
[http://www.reasons.org...]

So is that definition correct? Did you take their definition on faith, or did you independently investigate what a scientific model is?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:30:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Certainly, that's what the authors call it. They do so on multiple pages of their site. I read this when I first visited the site before responding to your post, for example:

Simply put, a scientific model is a conceptual framework that offers a simplified view of a large, complex reality. Models help researchers organize vast amounts of information into a conceptual structure so as to better understand and interpret the data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Einstein"s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
[http://www.reasons.org...]

So is that definition correct? Did you take their definition on faith, or did you independently investigate what a scientific model is?
It matches fairly well with the definition here:
"A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories." (dictionary.reference.com)
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:33:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:31:57 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 10:30:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Certainly, that's what the authors call it. They do so on multiple pages of their site. I read this when I first visited the site before responding to your post, for example:

Simply put, a scientific model is a conceptual framework that offers a simplified view of a large, complex reality. Models help researchers organize vast amounts of information into a conceptual structure so as to better understand and interpret the data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Einstein"s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
[http://www.reasons.org...]

So is that definition correct? Did you take their definition on faith, or did you independently investigate what a scientific model is?
It matches fairly well with the definition here:
"A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories." (dictionary.reference.com)

So you hold that their definition and the dictionary definition mean the same? You can see no significant differences or areas of concern?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 10:58:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:33:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

So you hold that their definition and the dictionary definition mean the same? You can see no significant differences or areas of concern?
Not at all. Though why did you not even state their full definition? If you read into the next paragraph, you will see:
"In science, the term 'model' refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena) that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history. A model is much more than a mere idea, inference, method, hypothesis, or rudimentary theory. It's a scenario that offers reasonable explanations for the entire scope (origin to ending) of a particular system, as well as for its relationship to other natural phenomena."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:58:18 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 10:33:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

So you hold that their definition and the dictionary definition mean the same? You can see no significant differences or areas of concern?
Not at all. Though why did you not even state their full definition? If you read into the next paragraph, you will see:
"In science, the term 'model' refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena) that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history. A model is much more than a mere idea, inference, method, hypothesis, or rudimentary theory. It's a scenario that offers reasonable explanations for the entire scope (origin to ending) of a particular system, as well as for its relationship to other natural phenomena."

It was their definition of model that first caused me concern, Ty -- and you can see that concern in my initial responses.

The dictionary definition you supplied offers a decent summary of what a model is, but it identifies two key properties that aren't mentioned in the Ross' definitions we quoted, including the expanded one you just supplied.

I have three questions for you:

1) What two critical properties of a model are missing from Ross' definition?
2) What do they mean?
3) Why are they critical?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.

Tstor has only been on DDO for a month. This is really shameful behaviour coming from our supposedly more mature members. Johnlubba was right, our moderators should take note on how some of our less secure members treat new members. I find their behaviour appalling and would demand that they apologize to our new member Tstor who in good faith continued the discussion.

They know the rules and here again it was blatantly obvious their intent was to derail this thread. How can we condone such cowardly behaviour?

I know the OP deals with some leading edge scientific theories that many of our members may not be comfortable with. But those who stepped forward to accept the challenge should have prepared themselves better in keeping with the traditions of DDO. All we got were excuses, ad hominem attacks and innuendo . Surely we are capable of much better. Between those possessed by God and those of lower dispositions, if we cannot meet the demanding academic thresholds, then can we not at least maintain some intellectual integrity no matter how bleak the prospects may be?

I am disappointed. As much as I appreciate the hands off approach our moderators take and their respect for the value of free speech. We do not want our members to be complacent in their ignorance or resistant to new challenges or wear their stupidity as a badge of honour. I ask that our moderators intervene and preserve this forum for the generation to come instead of tolerating a generation that was lost.

DDO is one of the better sites and I have a lot of respect for those who paved the way for our participation. But those are big shoes to fill and their ideals should not be dwarfed by intellectual midgets that I shall not name.

Tstor I apologize to you once again. You deserved better.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:03:16 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.

Tstor has only been on DDO for a month. This is really shameful behaviour coming from our supposedly more mature members. Johnlubba was right, our moderators should take note on how some of our less secure members treat new members. I find their behaviour appalling and would demand that they apologize to our new member Tstor who in good faith continued the discussion.

They know the rules and here again it was blatantly obvious their intent was to derail this thread. How can we condone such cowardly behaviour?

I know the OP deals with some leading edge scientific theories that many of our members may not be comfortable with. But those who stepped forward to accept the challenge should have prepared themselves better in keeping with the traditions of DDO. All we got were excuses, ad hominem attacks and innuendo . Surely we are capable of much better. Between those possessed by God and those of lower dispositions, if we cannot meet the demanding academic thresholds, then can we not at least maintain some intellectual integrity no matter how bleak the prospects may be?

I am disappointed. As much as I appreciate the hands off approach our moderators take and their respect for the value of free speech. We do not want our members to be complacent in their ignorance or resistant to new challenges or wear their stupidity as a badge of honour. I ask that our moderators intervene and preserve this forum for the generation to come instead of tolerating a generation that was lost.

DDO is one of the better sites and I have a lot of respect for those who paved the way for our participation. But those are big shoes to fill and their ideals should not be dwarfed by intellectual midgets that I shall not name.

Tstor I apologize to you once again. You deserved better.

Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Are you going to apologize to MCB, Brad and Rav for your petty attacks on them?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:27:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/9/2015 11:03:16 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.

Tstor has only been on DDO for a month. This is really shameful behaviour coming from our supposedly more mature members. Johnlubba was right, our moderators should take note on how some of our less secure members treat new members. I find their behaviour appalling and would demand that they apologize to our new member Tstor who in good faith continued the discussion.

They know the rules and here again it was blatantly obvious their intent was to derail this thread. How can we condone such cowardly behaviour?

I know the OP deals with some leading edge scientific theories that many of our members may not be comfortable with. But those who stepped forward to accept the challenge should have prepared themselves better in keeping with the traditions of DDO. All we got were excuses, ad hominem attacks and innuendo . Surely we are capable of much better. Between those possessed by God and those of lower dispositions, if we cannot meet the demanding academic thresholds, then can we not at least maintain some intellectual integrity no matter how bleak the prospects may be?

I am disappointed. As much as I appreciate the hands off approach our moderators take and their respect for the value of free speech. We do not want our members to be complacent in their ignorance or resistant to new challenges or wear their stupidity as a badge of honour. I ask that our moderators intervene and preserve this forum for the generation to come instead of tolerating a generation that was lost.

DDO is one of the better sites and I have a lot of respect for those who paved the way for our participation. But those are big shoes to fill and their ideals should not be dwarfed by intellectual midgets that I shall not name.

Tstor I apologize to you once again. You deserved better.

Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Are you going to apologize to MCB, Brad and Rav for your petty attacks on them?

This is not about me, this is about Tstor. Can you not read?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:40:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:01:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

It was their definition of model that first caused me concern, Ty -- and you can see that concern in my initial responses.

The dictionary definition you supplied offers a decent summary of what a model is, but it identifies two key properties that aren't mentioned in the Ross' definitions we quoted, including the expanded one you just supplied.

I have three questions for you:

1) What two critical properties of a model are missing from Ross' definition?
2) What do they mean?
3) Why are they critical?

To review, the dictionary definition:
A systematic description of an object or phenomenon
The RTB definition:
schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena)

To review, the dictionary definition:
that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon.
The RTB definition:
that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history.

So now let me answer your questions:
1) What two critical properties of a model are missing from Ross' definition?
According to the dictionary definition, none.

2) What do they mean?
Well, there needs to be critical differences in order to answer this.

3) Why are they critical?
They are not.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
deetoodee
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:02:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:03:16 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.

Tstor has only been on DDO for a month. This is really shameful behaviour coming from our supposedly more mature members. Johnlubba was right, our moderators should take note on how some of our less secure members treat new members. I find their behaviour appalling and would demand that they apologize to our new member Tstor who in good faith continued the discussion.

They know the rules and here again it was blatantly obvious their intent was to derail this thread. How can we condone such cowardly behaviour?

I know the OP deals with some leading edge scientific theories that many of our members may not be comfortable with. But those who stepped forward to accept the challenge should have prepared themselves better in keeping with the traditions of DDO. All we got were excuses, ad hominem attacks and innuendo . Surely we are capable of much better. Between those possessed by God and those of lower dispositions, if we cannot meet the demanding academic thresholds, then can we not at least maintain some intellectual integrity no matter how bleak the prospects may be?

I am disappointed. As much as I appreciate the hands off approach our moderators take and their respect for the value of free speech. We do not want our members to be complacent in their ignorance or resistant to new challenges or wear their stupidity as a badge of honour. I ask that our moderators intervene and preserve this forum for the generation to come instead of tolerating a generation that was lost.

DDO is one of the better sites and I have a lot of respect for those who paved the way for our participation. But those are big shoes to fill and their ideals should not be dwarfed by intellectual midgets that I shall not name.

Tstor I apologize to you once again. You deserved better. : :

You're like a man riding a horse who thinks he's driving it. Good horse riders know they can't drive a horse. They learn how to get the horse to give them a good ride.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:05:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:40:56 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 11:01:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It was their definition of model that first caused me concern, Ty -- and you can see that concern in my initial responses.
The dictionary definition you supplied offers a decent summary of what a model is, but it identifies two key properties that aren't mentioned in the Ross' definitions we quoted, including the expanded one you just supplied.
I have three questions for you:
1) What two critical properties of a model are missing from Ross' definition?
2) What do they mean?
3) Why are they critical?

To review, the dictionary definition:
A systematic description of an object or phenomenon
The RTB definition:
schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena)
Yes, that's one of them, Ty.

The word 'schematic' in the RTB definition suggests an outline or summary -- which is fine, since models do summarise. But is an outline necessarily systematic?

To review, the dictionary definition:
that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon.
The RTB definition:
that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history.
And that's the other.

Let's agree that observed and inferred features, origin and history are all important. But what is the difference between 'sharing important characteristics' and 'accounting for features'?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:15:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:05:46 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

A systematic description of an object or phenomenon
The RTB definition:
schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena)
Yes, that's one of them, Ty.

The word 'schematic' in the RTB definition suggests an outline or summary -- which is fine, since models do summarise. But is an outline necessarily systematic?
Does it necessarily mean it is not systematic?

schematic - (of a diagram or other representation) symbolic and simplified.
systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Do these two terms inherently conflict? No.

To review, the dictionary definition:
that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon.
The RTB definition:
that accountsfor its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history.
And that's the other.

Let's agree that observed and inferred features, origin and history are all important. But what is the difference between 'sharing important characteristics' and 'accounting for features'?
Once again, let's look to the definition of the key words here:
share - have a portion of (something) with another or others.
account - consider or regard in a specified way.

characteristic - a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.
feature - a distinctive attribute or aspect of something.

Do you not see the similarities here?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:15:38 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:05:46 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

A systematic description of an object or phenomenon
The RTB definition:
schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena)
Yes, that's one of them, Ty.

The word 'schematic' in the RTB definition suggests an outline or summary -- which is fine, since models do summarise. But is an outline necessarily systematic?
Does it necessarily mean it is not systematic?

schematic - (of a diagram or other representation) symbolic and simplified.
systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Do these two terms inherently conflict? No.

To review, the dictionary definition:
that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon.
The RTB definition:
that accountsfor its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and history.
And that's the other.

Let's agree that observed and inferred features, origin and history are all important. But what is the difference between 'sharing important characteristics' and 'accounting for features'?
Once again, let's look to the definition of the key words here:
share - have a portion of (something) with another or others.
account - consider or regard in a specified way.

characteristic - a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.
feature - a distinctive attribute or aspect of something.

Do you not see the similarities here?

Absolutely. Do you also see what's missing?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:20:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:16:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Absolutely. Do you also see what's missing?
Not at all. The only thing I am expecting you to do is make a moot point about a synonym used by Ross.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:28:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:20:47 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:16:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Absolutely. Do you also see what's missing?
Not at all. The only thing I am expecting you to do is make a moot point about a synonym used by Ross.

Two more questions, Ty. I think you'll need to use some judgement here because a dictionary won't go deep enough:

1) What does 'systematic' mean in a scientific context?
2) What is the difference between a model of a heart, and a story about a heart?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:31:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:28:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Two more questions, Ty. I think you'll need to use some judgement here because a dictionary won't go deep enough:

1) What does 'systematic' mean in a scientific context?
Pertaining or according to a system.
Systematics is the science of naming and classifying organisms in regard to their natural relationships, deals with populations, species and higher taxa.
(biology-online)
2) What is the difference between a model of a heart, and a story about a heart?
What kind of model? A physical model, a textual model, a 3D model, etc. None of those are in line with a story though.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.